College Newspaper Apologizes For Basic Journalism

[brucejoel99]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

Again, if its "trauma" to be seen at a public event, dont go. Its one thing to expect to be heard, its another to expect others to selectively hear you when you want but forget you when you want. I thought the line being promoted was that freedom of speech doesn't entitle someone to freedom from consequences. Otherwise Nazis cant be fired for protesting.

[brucejoel99]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

Again, if its "trauma" to be seen at a public event, dont go. Its one thing to expect to be heard, its another to expect others to selectively hear you when you want but forget you when you want. I thought the line being promoted was that freedom of speech doesn't entitle someone to freedom from consequences. Otherwise Nazis cant be fired for protesting.

You lost all credibility when you began equating hate speech with the freedom of expression.

Regardless, though, you don't lose your right to free speech just by going to college. These students don't "expect others to selectively hear [them] when [they] want but forget [them] when [they] want;" they just wanna be heard without the fear of suffering unjust consequences towering over their heads. These students still deserve the right to protest so long as they're not disrupting the functioning of the school or violating the school's relevant policies, which they haven't done, hence why the consequences they fear suffering ought to not be potentially applied here.

[Person Man]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

So it’s fascist to accuse fascists of being fascist?

[brucejoel99]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

So it’s fascist to accuse fascists of being fascist?

[Badger]

Badgers probably older than Dead0Man lol

About the same I think, maybe a bit more. The difference is I'm smarter not to dunk on Millennials as snowflakes when, as Master Jedi pointed out, the worst generation is the one that melts down at anything having to do with the modern world.

[dead0man]

Badgers probably older than Dead0Man lol

About the same I think, maybe a bit more. The difference is I'm smarter not to dunk on Millennials as snowflakes when, as Master Jedi pointed out, the worst generation is the one that melts down at anything having to do with the modern world.

which generation do you think that is?  I've also never said "snowflake" in my life to make fun of a weak person and rarely "Millennials" at all.  Certainly neither in this thread.  Are kids in college today even "Millennials" anymore?  Shouldn't they all have graduated a decade ago?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

Again, if its "trauma" to be seen at a public event, dont go. Its one thing to expect to be heard, its another to expect others to selectively hear you when you want but forget you when you want. I thought the line being promoted was that freedom of speech doesn't entitle someone to freedom from consequences. Otherwise Nazis cant be fired for protesting.

You lost all credibility when you began equating hate speech with the freedom of expression.

Regardless, though, you don't lose your right to free speech just by going to college. These students don't "expect others to selectively hear [them] when [they] want but forget [them] when [they] want;" they just wanna be heard without the fear of suffering unjust consequences towering over their heads. These students still deserve the right to protest so long as they're not disrupting the functioning of the school or violating the school's relevant policies, which they haven't done, hence why the consequences they fear suffering ought to not be potentially applied here.

Atlas ate my first, longer response. All I'm going to repost is that it is actually you who lost any credibility by claiming Constitutionally protected speech can be treated differently if its "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is). RBG would be ashamed to read such a wrong, ignorant, dangerous claim that speech isn't protected just because you personally dont like it... and that is absolutely what you are saying when you promote a false concept like "muh haytz peach". These protesters are not being denied the right to protest... instead what you argue is that their freedom includes freedom from consequences for anything they say. These protesters are no different than unite the right protesters, and no one ever credibly argued that the Nazis should be free from photographs so as to not endanger their private lives. If these protesters are too cowardly to be photographed protesting in public, then they are an embarrassment and should not be protesting. Speech has consequences and the notion that public protesters are entitled to anonymity and freedom from scrutiny is a  joke, whether you think someone else private "unjustly" punishes the speech or not. The whole point of a protest is to be seen and heard. Either they should be heard or ignored... you want them to be heard by supporters but demand they be ignored by opponents. That's not a free society at all and that's not at all how the 1st amendment works.

Also still waiting for anyone to explain what "traumatic event" the paper spoke of. A speech by the former Attorney General is not traumatic, nor is being photographed in a public place while publicly protesting.

[Kingpoleon]

As long as we're insulting each other over our birth cohorts, it's worth point out that college kids aren't clearly Millenials anymore.

Millennials should go to the end of the millennium. It just makes sense!

[brucejoel99]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

Again, if its "trauma" to be seen at a public event, dont go. Its one thing to expect to be heard, its another to expect others to selectively hear you when you want but forget you when you want. I thought the line being promoted was that freedom of speech doesn't entitle someone to freedom from consequences. Otherwise Nazis cant be fired for protesting.

You lost all credibility when you began equating hate speech with the freedom of expression.

Regardless, though, you don't lose your right to free speech just by going to college. These students don't "expect others to selectively hear [them] when [they] want but forget [them] when [they] want;" they just wanna be heard without the fear of suffering unjust consequences towering over their heads. These students still deserve the right to protest so long as they're not disrupting the functioning of the school or violating the school's relevant policies, which they haven't done, hence why the consequences they fear suffering ought to not be potentially applied here.

Atlas ate my first, longer response. All I'm going to repost is that it is actually you who lost any credibility by claiming Constitutionally protected speech can be treated differently if its "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is). RBG would be ashamed to read such a wrong, ignorant, dangerous claim that speech isn't protected just because you personally dont like it... and that is absolutely what you are saying when you promote a false concept like "muh haytz peach". These protesters are not being denied the right to protest... instead what you argue is that their freedom includes freedom from consequences for anything they say. These protesters are no different than unite the right protesters, and no one ever credibly argued that the Nazis should be free from photographs so as to not endanger their private lives. If these protesters are too cowardly to be photographed protesting in public, then they are an embarrassment and should not be protesting. Speech has consequences and the notion that public protesters are entitled to anonymity and freedom from scrutiny is a  joke, whether you think someone else private "unjustly" punishes the speech or not. The whole point of a protest is to be seen and heard. Either they should be heard or ignored... you want them to be heard by supporters but demand they be ignored by opponents. That's not a free society at all and that's not at all how the 1st amendment works.

Also still waiting for anyone to explain what "traumatic event" the paper spoke of. A speech by the former Attorney General is not traumatic, nor is being photographed in a public place while publicly protesting.

Aside from the fact that RBG isn't a justice who considers hate speech to be fully protected (& you'd know that if you took literally a second to examine her record), I'm not gonna keep arguing here. You're so deeply & obviously entrenched within your viewpoint that I'm never gonna be able to convince you that you might be wrong, & vice versa, so just... whatever. I can't force you to be right, you can't force me to change my mind, so let's just drop this whole charade.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Im still trying to figure out what "traumatic event" they were covering? All it otherwise talks about is a speech by the former Attorney General to a group of college Republicans that no one was required to attend. If that's what counts as a "traumatic event" now, then Gabriel should just go ahead and blow the trumpets.

I think the bit they were apologizing for was publishing the names of these random students so that people with nothing better to do could start harassing/threatening them etc.?

Not to mention, the fact that Northwestern is a private university means that, unlike a public university, the university could very well choose to punish those named students for having taken part in the protest if they wanted to do so.

How is that traumatic though? Being seen is the logical outcome of being in public.

Because one doesn't deserve to be deprived of the education they're paying for purely on the basis of having exercised their First Amendment right to join with fellow citizens in protest.

Again, if its "trauma" to be seen at a public event, dont go. Its one thing to expect to be heard, its another to expect others to selectively hear you when you want but forget you when you want. I thought the line being promoted was that freedom of speech doesn't entitle someone to freedom from consequences. Otherwise Nazis cant be fired for protesting.

You lost all credibility when you began equating hate speech with the freedom of expression.

Regardless, though, you don't lose your right to free speech just by going to college. These students don't "expect others to selectively hear [them] when [they] want but forget [them] when [they] want;" they just wanna be heard without the fear of suffering unjust consequences towering over their heads. These students still deserve the right to protest so long as they're not disrupting the functioning of the school or violating the school's relevant policies, which they haven't done, hence why the consequences they fear suffering ought to not be potentially applied here.

Atlas ate my first, longer response. All I'm going to repost is that it is actually you who lost any credibility by claiming Constitutionally protected speech can be treated differently if its "hate speech" (whatever the hell that is). RBG would be ashamed to read such a wrong, ignorant, dangerous claim that speech isn't protected just because you personally dont like it... and that is absolutely what you are saying when you promote a false concept like "muh haytz peach". These protesters are not being denied the right to protest... instead what you argue is that their freedom includes freedom from consequences for anything they say. These protesters are no different than unite the right protesters, and no one ever credibly argued that the Nazis should be free from photographs so as to not endanger their private lives. If these protesters are too cowardly to be photographed protesting in public, then they are an embarrassment and should not be protesting. Speech has consequences and the notion that public protesters are entitled to anonymity and freedom from scrutiny is a  joke, whether you think someone else private "unjustly" punishes the speech or not. The whole point of a protest is to be seen and heard. Either they should be heard or ignored... you want them to be heard by supporters but demand they be ignored by opponents. That's not a free society at all and that's not at all how the 1st amendment works.

Also still waiting for anyone to explain what "traumatic event" the paper spoke of. A speech by the former Attorney General is not traumatic, nor is being photographed in a public place while publicly protesting.

Aside from the fact that RBG isn't a justice who considers hate speech to be fully protected (& you'd know that if you took literally a second to examine her record), I'm not gonna keep arguing here. You're so deeply & obviously entrenched within your viewpoint that I'm never gonna be able to convince you that you might be wrong, & vice versa, so just... whatever. I can't force you to be right, you can't force me to change my mind, so let's just drop this whole charade.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4680437/user-clip-scalia-ginsburg-hate-speech

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

good statement here from the journalism school dean
https://www.medill.northwestern.edu/news/2019/statement-from-dean-whitaker.html?linkId=76919948

[HisGrace]

In regular newspapers there is coverage of murders, wars and other things far more "distressing" than taking someone's picture in public.

If the students did not want their names in the paper they could have refused to give them. If you tell a reporter your name they're allowed to print it.

[Figueira]

I was utterly convinced until the final line of this editorial that I was reading something brilliantly satirical, on the level of the Babylon Bee.

I could not be more shocked that this is how far the journalism program at such a vaunted college has fallen.

These are not journalists.

"brilliantly satirical"
"on the level of the Babylon Bee"

Pick one.

[Mister Mets]

I was utterly convinced until the final line of this editorial that I was reading something brilliantly satirical, on the level of the Babylon Bee.

I could not be more shocked that this is how far the journalism program at such a vaunted college has fallen.

These are not journalists.

"brilliantly satirical"
"on the level of the Babylon Bee"

Pick one.

The Babylon Bee is often pretty good.

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-merely-sharing-gospel-porn-star-explains-jim-bakker